JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the Ropar District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Milk Plant, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as the “Union”), the Barwa Cooperative Milk Producers Society Ltd., Barwa, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar (hereinafter referred to as the” Barwa Society”) and the Bhatton Cooperative Milk Producers Society Ltd., Bhatton (hereinafter referred to as the “Bhatton Society”) are the societies registered under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The Barwa Society and the Bhatton Society are the members of the Union and falls in zone No. 11 of the Union. The elections to the Milk Union were held in May 2010 in which the petitioner, being committee member of the Barwa Society, participated and likewise respondent No.4 also participated being the representative of Bhatton Society. Petitioner and respondent No.4 both secured 29 votes and there was a tie between them, however, the result of the election was declared by way of toss of a coin in which the petitioner was declared elected. Re­spondent No.4 filed the election petition chal­lenging the manner in which the election of the petitioner was held, who was declared elected by way of toss instead of draw of lots. The said elec­tion petition was dismissed on 31.08.2010 by re­spondent No.3 and instead of availing the remedy of appeal, CWP No. 17358 of 2010 was filed which was allowed on 01.12.2010 and the matter was remanded back to the respondent No.3 to decide the matter afresh. After the remand, respondent No.3 allowed the election petition on 27.02.2012 on the ground that the result of the election was declared in violation of Rule 11(1) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). The peti­tioner challenged the order of respondent No.3 by way of appeal under Section 68 of the Act be­fore the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pun­jab, which was allowed on 31.05.2012. Respon­dent No.4 preferred a revision before respondent No.1 against the order dated 31.05.2012 which has been allowed vide order dated 22.10.2012 in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Karnail Kaur v. Smt. Balbir Kaur, [2009(1) Law Herald (P&H) 248] : 2009(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 638. 2. Respon­dent No.4 preferred a revision before respondent No.1 against the order dated 31.05.2012 which has been allowed vide order dated 22.10.2012 in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Karnail Kaur v. Smt. Balbir Kaur, [2009(1) Law Herald (P&H) 248] : 2009(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 638. 2. The only argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the election, in case of a tie be­tween the two candidates, could also be held by way of spinning of coin/toss of a coin instead of draw’ of lots as in both the cases, element of chance is involved. He has relied upon a judg­ment of this Court in the case of Bharpai v. Ni­anbhari and another, 1975 PLJ 342 in support of his contention. 3. On the other hand counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no provision of toss of coin in the Rules in case of a tie, rather the Legislature has specifically used the procedure of draw of lots to be undertaken by the Returning Officer or the Presiding Officer as the case may be. He has referred to Rule 11(1) of the Rules and has also relied upon a decision of this Court in Smt. Karnail Kaur’s case (supra). 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and pe­rused the record with their able assistance. 5. The facts are not much in dispute as there is only the issue of interpretation of Rule 11 (1) of the Rules, which is reproduced as under:­ “11(1) After the counting of the votes has been completed, the candidates who secure a ma­jority of votes shall be declared elected by the Returning Officer or Presiding Officer, as the case may be. If the number of votes in favour of two or more candidates are equal, the matter shall be decided by lots drawn by the Returning Officer or Presiding Officer, as the case may be.” 6. A bare look at the aforesaid provision would show that the Legislature has deliberately used the word “matter shall be decided by draw of lots”, which is apparently a sing qua non in case of a tie between the two candidates 1 and the word “by toss of coin” is conspicuously absent in the aforesaid provisions which cannot be introduced at the instance of the petitioner, the Returning Officer or the Presiding Offices. Had there been any intention of using the said method of deciding the tie between the two candidates by way of toss of coin, it could have been provided by the Legislature in the Rules instead of providing the method of deciding the tie between the two candidates by way of lots to be drawn by the Returning Officer or the Presiding Officer, as the case may be. 7. In Bharpai’s case (supra), proviso to Rule 12(5) of the Haryana Gram Panchayat (Co-option of Women Panches) Rules, 1971, was involved in which also it was provided that in case of a tie between the two candidates, the Presiding Officer shall draw a lot of such candidates and it has been held that spinning of coin would also include draw of lots. 8. With utmost respect but due deference, I do not subscribe the view expressed in the aforesaid case as I have taken a view in Smt. Karnail Kaur’s case (supra), while interpreting Rule 71 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1960, which is also para materia with Rule 11(1) of the Rules. Rule 71 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1960, is also reproduced for the ready reference: “Rule 71 - Equality of votes.-- If, after the counting, of votes equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates and an addi­tion of one vote will entitle any of those can­didates to be declared elected, the Returning Officer (Panchayat) shall forthwith decide between those candidates by lot and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot fall has received one additional vote.” 9. In Smt. Karnail Kaur’s case (supra), I have relied upon two decision of this Court in the cases of Harbans Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1984 RRR 561 and Om Parkash Lamba v. State of Punjab and others, 1962 Cur. L.J. 152. 10. In Harbans Singh’s case (supra), it has been held that lot drawn would tantamount to be securing of one additional vote in favour of the candidates in whose favour the lot is drawn. It was further held that the mandatory language of the Rule is that the drawing of the lot has to be ‘forthwith’, meaning thereby that it has to be the next imme­diate step. It was further held that the mandatory language of the Rule is that the drawing of the lot has to be ‘forthwith’, meaning thereby that it has to be the next imme­diate step. So, certainty being one of the essential attributes of law the Interpretation of the rule which can give rise to looseness and speculation has to be discarded, and rather it has to be put on a firm and straight footing. 11. In Om Parkash Lamba’s case (supra), it was observed by the Court that in words and phrases “the phrase to draw lots” is to determine an event by drawing one thing from a number whose marks are concealed from the drawer. The es­sence of drawing lots is that the drawer himself should appear unconcerned with the result and the numbers themselves from which, he is to se­lect are concealed from him. It was held eld that in throwing a coin in the air, the drawer may be in a position to determine the result. It was further held that it might well be that the State Govern­ment did not wish to countenance the procedure of ‘tossing up’ in the election of a President of a democratic assembly, being indignified or im­proper. 12. Thus, the view expressed by this Court in Smt. Karnail Kaur’s case (supra) is supported by the views expressed in Harbans Singh’s case (su­pra) and Om Parkash Lainba’s case (supra) and in that matter I am inclined to subscribe the view expressed in the case of Smt. Karnail Kaur’s case (supra). 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------